I don't think that Yoder was an inerrantist in any sense of the word, but that his concern was merely with properly understanding the canon and its meaning, as opposed to more liberal scholars of the historical Jesus who see the canon as a stumbling point to understanding. In TPOJ Yoder gives plenty of ink to the more liberal scholars, but argues essentially that while their quest may present a more socially concerned Jesus, the canon presents a Jesus sufficiently socially concerned as it is. I think the basic problem is that the liberals and conservative agree together that the canon is inherently socially conservative, and thus the liberals see it as betraying Jesus' call to social concern, and the conservative see it as showing that Jesus had little social concern. At which point Yoder argues the alternative, that the canon presents a Jesus that is very socially concerned, and so however one reads the Bible they should recognize Jesus as actively engaged in the social reality.
The problem I think is that people's usually rely on their cultural experiences in interpreting scripture, and the canon has been culturally deemed as socially and economically conservative. So liberals reject the canon on accout of its conservatism and conservatives embrace the canon for the same reason, but neither actually allow the canon to speak for itself fully apart from American culture.

Right. I think trusting the NT's sources doesn't have to mean thinking they were free from error in every nitpicky detail (though it can mean that) so much as believing that they got Jesus right. In this respect Yoder stands in marked contrast to Marcus Borg, who figures the apostles started making things up almost immediately after Jesus ascended (perhaps including the ascension itself!). So the fact that they're both non-inerrantists shows how little meaning that category actually has.

You may find this interesting; I just used it in companionship with a feminist piece to teach hermeneutics to my intro Bible class:

http://www.faithandvalues.com/tx/RO-46/1/

What I think is that the NT is a vessel of inerrant Truth, without being historically accurate in every detail. The truth of the bible transcends reportage.

Dear Camassia,

This is a very fine analysis. I haven't read Yoder--I've tried a couple of times, but somehow he just doesn't resonate with me. But this gives me cause to reconsider. Thank you.

shalom,

Steven

This is a great post. When it's read in tandem with your previous one, it's a compelling description of why this is such a fascinating time of potentially radical eccleciological realignments.

Can this groundswell of "catholic" post-liberal, post-evangelical protestant sentiment form an institutionally embodied church committed to personal and social discipleship?

I think the fundamental question isn't, "Is the Bible literally true?" but, "Do you trust the people who wrote the Bible?"

This is the key insight of a great post. This is closely related to the issue I e-mailed you about a few weeks back about the historical continuity and authority of the Church (not the same point, but related). "The people who wrote the Bible" are the same people who were the nucleus of the primitive Church; and the authenticity of their experience of Jesus and the reliability of their transmission of His message is the linchpin of this whole Christian thing.

BTW, in addition to Catholicism you can put Eastern Orthodoxy and confessional Lutheranism into your first camp.

Oh, and isn't what Bush and his friends do called "reader-response" level criticism?

My Grandmother was in Pres. Bush's study group, I think. She could decide to do one thing, and quote a Bible verse to support her position, change her mind, and quote a different one to support her new position, without blinking an eye. After all, the Bible was always right, did it matter which part you quoted?

I agree with the folks above, this was a good read. I would modify the second of your three categories, above ("No, their prejudices and agendas distort God's message"), to also add that God's message is distorted by our capacity to understand and conceptualize. If, for example, John drafted Revelation after having a true vision of Armageddon, he would not sit down and describe F-18 fighter aircraft, H-bombs, and Tommahawk cruise missles. He'd have to use his concepts and language to explain something that his language was not designed to explain. I imagine we'd get a description of flying beasts, etc. Even if John managed to avoid any overt agenda, and did his best not to betray any prejudices (impossible, I know), there would still be limits on his ability to convey God's message. My 2 cents, anyway.

That's a great post; wise words.

Great post. I find myself wavering between the first answer and the second. On the one hand, I don't believe the Bible is inerrant in any sense; not only don't I think it's a literal science text, I also think it can contain human errors and agendas and misunderstandings, mingled with God's revelation. On the other hand, when I was reading Borg and N.T. Wright side by side, I found myself leaning more toward Wright than Borg, in the level of trust I was willing to give the gospel writers. I do see the people who wrote the Bible as a more trustworthy guide than not.

P.C., I agree, and that's why I drew the distinction between literalism and inerrancy. The Catholic Church, for instance, has always held that the Bible is inerrant, but has also held that Revelation is a metaphor (I forget exactly for what, I think Rome under Nero). To me, that's a different thing from saying that, for instance, the apostles' stories about being visited by the resurrected Jesus were driven by power struggles within the church (based on who saw him first). The latter takes the inconsistencies between the Gospels in bad faith, whereas the former view is just allowing for poetic language.

To briefly address Hugo: I'm an English major who actually likes some aspects of reader response theories, which actually have very little to do with the quite vulgar "what I personally think about the text" or "how I responded to the text" but is something much less individualistic, pertaining more to the issue of "how does the text work to elicit a certain type of response in the reader."

As for Camassia's categorization, I think that some aspects of the first option are worthwhile, but perhaps three and a half years in English grad school have made me unable to not give quite a bit of credence to more suspicious readings of anything. I've read a bit of N. T. Wright, and sometimes he seems to be a bit too credulous. On the other hand, many scholars are very overly-critical (and yes, publication, and hence the desire not to be right but cutting-edge, has a lot to do with it). I actually think its good to have a fair number of people on both sides (and/or falling somewhere in the middle (as I do; I think it's probably the mark of being in the right place when both sides can legitimately attack you)), as long as there is a willingness to keep lines of communication open (and it seems like in many places there is; it is the people who fall into the third category who most tend to exclude or be excluded from discussions).